Standards for Breakout Buying:
Silver's SSRI
....................................Bush's
Policies Threaten The US Dollar and The Savings of Millions on Fixed Incomes.

October 28, 2007 Updated 11/6/2007William Schmidt,
- Tiger Software's Creator
(C) 2007 William Schmidt, Ph. D. - All Rights
Reserved. No reproductions of this blog or
quoting from it
without explicit written consent by its author is
permitted.

All breakouts are by no means equal. But those that take prices above a series of
highs, arranged so that a flat line can be drawn through more than a half dozen of them,
are
much more likely to produce excellent gains. Sometimes, prices need to go past
a round
number to achieve a breakout that everyone will accept. If the breakout moves the
stock
up into all-time high territory, so much the better. And breakouts that show lots of
bulging
blue Accumulation and have a rising OBV Line are apt to be the best performers. We
want the stocks we buy to be relative strength leaders, not laggards. These
are some of
the main techincial standards we apply when considering buying a breakout.

If we consider fundamentals, breakouts should be in industries that are strong and in
stocks
that have a history of upside volatility when earlier breakouts occurred.

Let's consider each of these points in connection with SSRI which is expected to breakout
above $40 on Monday, October 29th, as a result of surging gold and silver prices,
occasioned
by Bush's threatening war on Iran and the Fed's policy of printong millions more paper
dollars
to bail out banks and the home financing industries.

1) The SSRI chart fot the last year shows 9 separate tests of the Blue resistance line.
It is
not perfectly horizontal, but close enough. It is on the verge of making a move past
the
the significant round number 40.

2) The Tiger Accumulation Index is now up to the first dotted line above 0. This is
a
helpful qualier.

3.) The OBV Line is lagging. This is not a necessary condition for buying if enough
other
qualifying characteristics are present.

4) The Tiger Intermediate Term Relative Strength Indicator is almost up to the +.30 level.
This is very positive. The stock has handily outperformed the DJI over the last 50
trading days,

5. It is safe to buy the stock at the Opening. Fades after the opening are not
noteworthy.
That is a bullish consideration, too.

Our TigerSoft chart for Silver shows that the metal itself still needs to surpass
resistance from
$14.50 - $14.60 an ounce.
But it is on a strong BUY, using the criteria for evaluating a TigerSoft
commodity chart, disccused
recently in my Blog - http://www.tigersoft.com/Tiger-Blogs/10-7-2007/index.htm

Gold and now Silver stocks are booming. Look below at the chart of the Gold Stock
Index - XAU.
I have been saying for months a
powerful breakout over $160 would soon take place. My reasoning
has been set out here many times.
One thing I will add is that it was getting to easy trading the
short-term swings of the XAU.
The same approach had been averaging 75% to 115% per year
since 2005. Short term
traders are allowed to scalp only so long. Then a bigger move starts..

The rise in Gold and Silver is very bad bews for those on fixed incomes and those relying
on income
from a CD or a savings account. Gold goes up when the dollar goes down and vice
versa.
Now the
Dollar is dropping faster and faster. Speculators are now selling it short.
The problem,
of course is that
Bush has saddled America with two trillion dollars of debt to pay for his blunder,
the Iraq War.
Until the US occupation ends there, billions and billions more debt is created.
Watch the Dollar's slide in the day's ahead. It is a the point of breaking below the lower
support
line in its
downward price channel. This means the decline of the dollar will accelerate.

The United States dollar is facing imminent collapse in the face
of an unsustainable debt, the United Nations warned today.

United States debt, which had now deepened to well over $3 trillion, might turn out to
be unsustainable in the rest of 2007 or next, putting further downward pressure on the
United States dollar, Rob Vos, the Director of the Development Policy and Analysis
Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), told correspondents at a
Headquarters press conference.

He pointed out that since its peak in 2002, the dollar had depreciated vis-à-vis the
major currencies by some 35 per cent and by 25 per cent against a broader range of other
currencies.

Vos made these comments at the launch of the 2007 World Economic Situation and
Prospects report midyear update.

With that increased debt the risk of a sharp depreciation of the dollar continued, he
warned. If countries willing to invest in United States dollar assets expected further
depreciation, they might be less willing to hold dollar assets, triggering a much sharper
fall in the United States dollar. The risk of disorderly adjustment and the steep fall of
the dollar existed. The policy challenge was how to prevent a hard landing of the United
States dollar and forge a benign adjustment of the global imbalance.

In terms of the United States housing sector, he noted that a recession in the housing
sector had continued in 2007, with a slowdown in activity and a large number of unsold
homes. While house prices had not fallen, that might happen in the months and years to
come if the recession continued as expected. A decline in prices would affect the domestic
market, particularly household consumption in the United States, resulting in the risk of
a serious recession in its economy, slowing growth from 2.1 per cent to 0.5 per cent in
2007 and 2008. That would then significantly slow the world economy and transmit the
recession into the rest of the world.

The United States deficit had increased to $860 billion at the end of 2006, and was
expected to fall to $800 billion in 2007. That deficit was basically being financed by
surpluses in the developing and oil exporting countries, as well as some major developed
countries, in particular Japan and Germany. The European Union,at large, was projected to
continue to have a slight deficit on its current account.

Continuing, he said the current tendency in macroeconomic policy was not all in the
right direction, particularly in the surplus countries where there had been a tightening
of monetary and fiscal policies, particularly in Germany and Japan, making it more
difficult for the United States to lower its external deficits by export growth. The
United States would also need to adopt some contractionary policies to slow down its
deficit, he recommended.

There
is a very real danger that those countries who intensely dislike
Bush's Doctrine of Unilateral Pre-Emptive Warfar instead of
Diplomacy
will choose to stop Bush by dumping the dollar.

On Feb. 10, at the 43rd Munich
Security Conference, Putin told the world's assembled political leaders
that the United States was trying to establish a
"uni-polar world," which he defined as "one single center of
power, one single center of force and one single
master." This goal, Putin said, was a "formula for disaster."
"The United States," Putin said, truthfully,
"has overstepped its borders in all spheres" and "has imposed itself
on other states." The Russian leader declared,
"We see no kind of restraint  a hyper-inflated use of force."
To avoid catastrophe, Putin said a reconsideration of the
entire existing architecture of global security was
necessary....The United States, Putin said, has gone
"from one conflict to another without achieving a full-fledged
solution to any of them." n his 2006 state of
the nation speech, Putin noted that America's military budget is 25 times
larger than Russia's. He compared the Bush regime to a wolf
who eats whomever he wants without listening.

"The solution is nonmilitary
challenge."The
Bush regime's ability to wage war is dependent upon foreign financing. The regime's wars
are financed
with red ink, which means the hundreds of billions of
dollars must be borrowed. As American consumers are
spending more than they earn on consumption, the money
cannot be borrowed from Americans. The United
States is totally dependent upon foreigners to finance its
budget and trade deficits. By financing these deficits,
foreign governments are complicit in the Bush regime's
military aggressions and war crimes. The Bush regime's
two largest lenders are China and Japan. It is ironic that
Japan, the only nation to experience nuclear attack
by the United States, is banker to the Bush regime as it
prepares a possible nuclear attack on Iran. If the rest of the
world would simply stop purchasing U.S. Treasuries, and
instead dump their surplus dollars into the foreign exchange
market, the Bush regime would be overwhelmed with economic
crisis and unable to wage war. The arrogant hubris
associated with the "sole superpower" myth would
burst like the bubble it is."The
collapse of the dollar would also end the U.S. government's ability to subvert other
countries by
purchasing their leaders to do America's will.
The demise of the U.S. dollar is only a question of time. It would
save the world from war and devastation if the dollar is brought
to its demise before the Bush regime launches its
planned attack on Iran." (Source: http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts/the-world-can-halt-bush-s-crimes-by-dumping-the-dollar.html
)

What
If OPEC Did Not Require Dollars To Buy Their Oil

One of the
reasons everybody has to have dollars is that the OPEC oil producting countries only
accept
dollars for oil. Iran is
challenging that. Other OPEC countries will almost certainly discontinue this
requirement if the Dollar continues to
weaken, as seems very likely. On 7/23/2007 I wrote:

There is a "bigger danger is that oil producing countries
may stop accepting dollars for payment, because
the dollar becomes too
weak. Iran announced this April that they would accept only Euros or Yen. The
US
has a current net -$862,300,000,000.00
in its
international trades of goods and services. When OPEC
was formed, all the
OPEC countries agreed that they would only sell oil for dollars and dollar
denominated securities.
In other words, if you wanted to buy oil from an OPEC country, you had to
buy dollars first.
This created a ready demand for dollars. And OPEC countries tended to invest
much of the "petro
dollar wealth" back in the US. The run-up in oil prices since 2002 thus
actually
boosted the US stock
market and its economy. If OPEC changed their rules and allowed other
countries to buy in
another currency, it would mean far higher interest rates and hyper-inflation in the US.
( http://www.tigersoft.com/Tiger-Blogs/7-23-2007/index.htm
)